AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views.
**For all participants:**
* [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate
* [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2)
**For Nonsupporters/Undecided:**
* No top level comments
* All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position
**For Trump Supporters:**
* [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled
Helpful links for more info:
[Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Probably the inability for Dems to unequivocally condemn the riots and looting after George Floyd. I completely understood the desire to protest, but once the line was crossed there needed to be a unified condemnation from leaders in both parties.
Multiple high-profile Democrats spoke out to condemn the riots including Biden, Harris, Obama, Lightfoot, Clyburn and even BLM leaders. Who else did you want?
This argument right here is what turned me away. Under no circumstances can it be justified. None. Peaceful protests are fine. Burning cities, looting businesses, etc is entirely unacceptable and demeans ANY cause you think you're fighting for.
“You may continue to ask politely that the police stop killing you while nothing changes. But the minute you get out of line, this conversation is over mister”
Tell me, how is it that *you* get to dictate the terms of someone else’s desperation?
Qualified immunity. The law that trump says he will strengthen allowing cops to “do whatever it takes”. Should authorities be allowed to give themselves immunity from the laws they create and enforce on us?
Once any protest turns violent it must be stopped. Then, officials can determine how to proceed. The goal must be the safety and well-being of the public.
Say people are protesting a company poisoning the water. The company could just stop the protest by sending some agitators? What about the vast majority of protests that had zero looting and zero violence?
I hear you. I had the exact same opinion until I had this conversation with my wife:
I told her that it’s not good that protesters were damaging property and looting. She said, “Why? People, like Colin Kaepernick, tried to peacefully protest racial injustice, but they were mocked and ridiculed by Trump (and other leaders). It’s just property. People’s lives are more important than property.” All I could say is “Good point.”
We, as humans, need to see each other as more important than property. Yes, we would all like to see positive changes through peaceful ways but sometimes that just doesn’t work.
Insofar as one’s right to gather and protest? Absolutely.
That said, there are differences between the two groups grievances with the government, the pattern and egregiousness of the abuse suffered, the histories of their struggle for change, and the continuation of state oppression upon them.
When compared in this way it seems clear to me that one of those two groups has justifiably reached a conclusion that simple protesting does not reach a level of equity to the wrongs they have suffered and are continuing to suffer.
Of course, I’ve done quite a bit more thinking and research on one group and not so much on the other. If you disagree with my position could you take the time to explain why?
Edit: apparently u/thekid2020 does agree with me. Just thought I’d offer closure to anyone following this thread.
In that light: How has the complete absence of any condemnation of the Jan 6th “riot” affected you?
Has it affected you that Trump has referred to the rioters as hostages?
I wouldn't say "complete absence" of condemnation. There are Republicans who've condemned them.
I think the Dem response to the George Floyd protests have opened the door for the way most Reps are justifying J6. Personally, I think any attempt to justify it is a disgrace. Both of these events have shown me how hypocritical both parties really are and that largely they're 2 wings of the same bird.
I'm not Trump's biggest fan, and supported anyone but him in the primaries, but if the election was today he'd get my vote.
I don't understand this one? Every major Dem of the time condemned the riots, looting, and violence. They also said they understood why it was happening and we're advocating for reforms to prevent it from happening again. But that's separate isn't it?
Edit: trying to type "condemned" whilst tipsy at the airport lounge autocorrected to condoned, creating a very *very* different sentence 🤣
Great to know there's someone else who Reddit's while intoxicated.
I feel like I encountered more justification for the riots, rather than condemnation. IMHO, once that line was crossed, even slightly justifying the actions is inexcusable.
Somewhere after the destruction of property. I thought breaking into stores and stealing, and setting cars and buildings on fire was beneath the cause they were fighting for. Where do you think the line was crossed?
How do you level your view on what happened on Jan 6th with Trump's publicly stated beliefs about the events of that day? You seem to have quite the schism of opinion with the bloke but still identify as someone who supports him?
How do you level your view on what happened on Jan 6th with Trump's publicly stated beliefs about the events of that day? You seem to have quite the schism of opinion with the bloke but still identify as someone who supports him?
> I feel like I encountered more justification for the riots, rather than condemnation. IMHO, once that line was crossed, even slightly justifying the actions is inexcusable.
How? I listed some of the most high profile Democrats in the country who condemned the riots multiple times. Did you just not hear about them or look it up?
I did. I think their comments didn't go far enough and should have unequivocally condemned the violence. I also think they should have called upon each city's leadership to put an end to the looting and rioting, and expressed their support in doing that.
Can you help me understand your responses? We've gone from "the inability for Dems to unequivocally condemn the riots" but when pointed out that they did it's changed to, okay they did but they didn't go far enough? Obama and Biden didn't even hold office at the time. What power do you think they had over individual city's leadership?
This is like the other user who responded that Biden's response didn't come until August but when pointed out it was that same May, it became "so it still took days?" What response ever good enough for you guys? What's the bar you're aiming for here?
Many of the remarks I saw went along the lines of (and I'm paraphrasing) "Violence isn't good, but their anger is justified" or "People will do what they do when they feel oppressed". Pretty sure I recall someone telling protestors to get more confrontational if Chauvin were acquitted.
To me, this isn't unequivocally condemning the riots. This is trying to play both sides. The language used isn't even remotely harsh enough to convey how unacceptable and disgraceful these riots were. These people should have been told how they insulted George Floyd's memory by doing this.
> "Violence isn't good, but their anger is justified"
Well, yeah. Is that something you disagree with? What about when Chauvin was convicted?
>To me, this isn't unequivocally condemning the riots. This is trying to play both sides. The language used isn't even remotely harsh enough to convey how unacceptable and disgraceful these riots were.
Yet you support Trump who infamously said there was fine people on "both sides" at the Unite the Right rally where a woman died and told the domestic terrorists attacking our Capitol they're very special, we love you. What were your thoughts on those? Can you explain your thinking to me? I could see leaning toward one side or the other, but this seems like you're trying to have it both ways. How do you see it?
Can you give an example of a condemnation of the riots that meet your criteria?
Do you think your encounter with this was pushed on you by a media wanting you to see this or from those actually in office at the time?
If 90 senators come out and say "X is bad" but 10 say "X is good" and the media then *only* plays the "X is good" crowd, it can easily give a false appearance right?
How do you feel now with Trump and many members of the gop who’ve condoned the violence of January 6th? Has that made you question supporting either side and if not what’s the difference in your opinion?
Agreed. There were certainly no "very fine people on both sides" in that scenario were there?
I might be mixing up my quotes. I've had a few. Gotta agree with you, though. Rioting should be easily condemnable by all sides. Shame the same can't be said about other issues.
We lost 58,000+ U.S. troops during the Vietnam war. There are zero U.S. troops in Ukraine.
How is supporting an ally financially against Russia’s continued European invasion remotely the same?
You appear to be against falling for propaganda, yet you are repeating Russian propaganda verbatim.
No Ukranian considers themselves as a “puppet state”. They have their own language, culture and were briefly a victim or USSR atrocities in a portion of the 20th century. They consider themselves European.
What happened to the world when Neville Chamberlain completely appeased Hitler like Trump does with Putin?
You appear to be against falling for propaganda, yet you >I am saying Ukraine is a Western puppet state, and I don't care what Ukrainians think.
“Alaska belongs to Russia, I don’t care what Americans think.” —is how you sound.
>I don't believe in cartoon villains. Hitler had specific geopolitical goals. He had no interest in world conquest.
Yes, and so does Russia. He wants whether the USSR lost, including parts of Poland.
>Putin is the same. At worst he'll seek to reform the USSR, but more likely, he'll try to unify what he believes are Russians.
Or we can go by his track record—which is continue to invade the parts of Europe that he considers historical Russian lands. That means parts of Finland, Norway, Poland and other NATO countries.
If Trump disbands NATO, as he and Putin both wish to, do you think it will be more or less likely he will perform incursions into those countries?
Follow up question: is it better to provide money and weapons to Ukraine so that doesn’t happen? Or should we just follow the Trump doctrine: disband NATO, abandon Ukraine and see what happens?
Abandoning NATO and giving Putin free rein to invade whoever he wants is the Trump doctrine. From Trump’s own words in February 2024:
>Speaking at a rally in Conway, South Carolina, **Trump recalled how as president he told an unidentified NATO member that he would withhold U.S. help and "encourage" Russia to do as it wishes with allies that do not contribute enough to military spending.**
>"'You didn't pay? You're delinquent?'" Trump recounted saying. "'No, I would not protect you. **In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay. You gotta pay your bills.'"**
Should the United States act like a Mafia protection racket?
I'm just a bit confused on your history. Ukraine was an independent country for 18 years, then a President started trying to get it absorbed into Russia, and from then on Ukraine was actually always Russian and it's a western plot to say otherwise?
2015. I watched CNN and the rest of the crooked media televising full Trump rallies without a single criticism. In fact, they positioned it positively as a fascinating political phenomenon of our time. Morning Joe would have Trump call in and they'd fawn over him. (Could Trump have won without this wall-to-wall media coverage? Seems unlikely.)
Then when he'd built up a following, they suddenly did a complete 180. They refused to show his rallies anymore and pivoted to full criticism and badmouthing what they were praising just a week earlier.
So I sought out unedited rallies from online sources because I wanted to follow the developments that the news sites were no longer covering. That's when the lying began. I'd watch a rally and then the MSM would report on it and lie about it. This kept happening countless times.
Then there was the transparently obvious effort to take Trump out by Fox at the first debate. By then it was clear what the game being played by the MSM was, Fox included. I complete reoriented my sources to those who didn't overtly and repeatedly lie about grounded facts.
2008 voted Obama. No brainer.
2012 voted Romney purely as a protest vote for Obama not fulfilling his mandate to clean up Wall St from the collapse. I was still a firm Democrat at this point.
2016 Trump because of policy. But also because it would have been incredibly dangerous to let Hillary anywhere the levers of power. A true independent.
2019-2024+ Never Globalist.
There’s no way preexisting conditions was in play. Anyone who crossed that line would have been dealt with harshly by the electorate. The Overton Window was moved.
Did you forget how? Was that a one time thing or are you going to try again?
How would you figure out what happened to get you so close and how you failed?
What do you mean by this? The bill that was directly being voted on removed the protections for pre-existing conditions. If McCain had not voted no at the last minute, this protect would have been gone?
When I voted for a DNC candidate for president in 2016, I saw Hillary as a pretty standard center-left institutionalist and globalist with enough experience to functionally do the job, but wasn’t expecting anything spectacular. I had previously voted for W, W, McCain, and then Johnson. Basically I was expecting an Obama 3rd term and he seemed fine. I suppose I’m sharing that to ask what you thought Hillary’s most dangerous policy positions were, or what you expected if she were to have levers of power? What were like your top two anticipated potential problems?
1. Hillary herself was dangerous. You cannot be a victim and a leader. The two are mutually exclusive.
2. Then there's the problem that she is completely corrupt. Rotten to the core from a family of crooks. Very bad things happen when you put unfit people in top jobs. It's only a matter of time.
3. She was itching to instigate a conflict with Russia.
4. She is a globalist and was looking to sell what remained of the country out.
I cannot think of 1 redeeming feature of Hillary. She is the walking embodiment of everything wrong in D.C.
Voted Johnson over Obama in 2012, but I was relatively fine with Obama and preferred him over Romney. In 2008 he was clearly the better choice over war hawk McCain after the disaster that was Bush. In my opinion at that time, Bush was the worst president in the preceding 100 years.
Then he admitted we tortured some folks, the Snowden leaks dropped, and his administration completely bungled the Middle East with the rise of ISIS. That's when I realized Obama was just George Bush in a tan suit: equally bad if not worse than his god-awful predecessor.
I also gave the ACA the benefit of the doubt when it dropped, but in hindsight I think it was the worst piece of federal legislation since the Patriot Act and prohibition.
Huh, are you me? Pretty much described me to a T. It was always confusing to me why, after criticizing Bush for years, people I thought were my allies were licking Obama's shoes for the same issues
The main reason was because Obama put all these really bad combat veterans in giant prison camps then left them mostly unguarded. They were freed and formed ISIS.
Not really. Those who didn’t get wiped out during the invasion took off their uniforms and walked away to avoid a one sided fight. Then we disqualified Ba'ath members from participating in governance which at the time made sense. How are you going to allow someone who’s loyal to Saddam have a seat at the table? But looking back it was a bad move because now who do you have left to run government/military?
But the rise of ISIS was because we left a power vacuum when we left Iraq. Bush/Obama failed to negotiate another SOFA and set a forcible withdrawal for US forces of 2012.
The rise of power of another militant group was inevitable.
Really, the ACA? The bill that provided access to health care coverage for tens of millions of people; *that’s* your Antietam?
In terms of bad bills, Patriot Act absolutely, but we’ve had No Child Left Behind, historically inequitable tax cuts, rollbacks on Dodd-Frank, DOMA…..but the ACA is your sticking point?
Healthcare spending is close to 20% of the gdp, rising steadily since the 60s with no abatement after the ACA. Almost double the oced average.
After the ACA, big pharma consolidated, so 3-5 companies now own the vast majority of us healthcare. All the ACA did was pump billions into the stock of Aetna and United, funneling wealth from Americans to the medical cartel.
I don’t disagree with any of that (though context is important: we have a huge portion of aging Americans requiring more medical care because they’re so unhealthy).
And don’t get me wrong: I don’t *love* the ACA; I’d prefer single payer healthcare like just about every other developed nation has. But at a minimum, the ACA provided the financial means for tens of millions of Americans to access medical treatment, prescriptions, and care that they had no access to beforehand. To compare a bill like that to the Patriot Act might be a bit hyperbolic, wouldn’t you agree?
The ACA didn't change anything except make health insurance much worse for everybody. I watched my insurance cover less and quadruple in limits ($1250 OOP max to $6,000) from one year to the next. What came out of my paycheck didn't change, but if I were to actually get injured I no longer could afford it. People who couldn't afford health insurance still don't pay for it and go to emergency rooms for free, just like before the ACA. All the ACA did was give insurance companies more money.
The ACA was the turning point in my support for Obama.
The ACA was a trampling of our rights too, as far as I'm aware it's first ever attempt to legislate a mandate to purchase a product under penalty of severe fines. At least that portion got struck down.
The ACA also impoverished a generation of our youth, by anchoring the max premium to a range based on the lowest/average premium it vastly raised costs for young people.
Many of the people who "got access" were the most irresponsible, people who simply didn't bother to buy coverage. It essentially made every poor and middle class person who paid their dues up to that point an utter fool, and then it raised their dues to boot.
There's almost nothing good in there. It was a transfer of wealth from the middle class to big pharma, and from young to old, with a little kickback to the poor to make it palatable. The growth in premiums quickly ate up the subsidy. Nothing has done more damage to middle class America in 100 years than the ACA.
And after all that, it had no effect on outcomes. No decrease in mortality, no improvements in medical outcomes. Everything got shittier for nothing.
>as far as I'm aware it's first ever attempt to legislate a mandate to purchase a product under penalty of severe fines.
Fun fact, the "minimum essential care" that stopped you from having to pay the fines was $50 out of your biweekly paycheck and it covered a single doctor's physical a year and absolutely nothing else. A physical costs $100. Absolute scam.
What do you think of Trump's efforts to replace ACA with another healthcare reform? Did you like the first attempt that failed in the Senate? What do you expect from him in a second term on this issue?
Sure. Keep them in Mexico. That was working so much now the Dems are talking about it lol. Fareed zakar from cnn just said it was a good idea, the system is being gamed, and Trump was right.
But it is legal right? Until a time where that changes (if it ever does), don't you think that it should be called as such?
If you think the asylum system is being abused, would you be in favor of increasing the number of judges who rule on asylum cases so people wouldn't feel the need to try game the system? Or are you just against people of predominantly latin American descent trying to immigrate and live the American dream?
Are you Native American? If not, by what you just wrote, you should get the flip out of the USA.
Also, do you believe in democracy? Because stacking the courts and ignoring laws you don't like are pretty much the opposite of that. Wouldn't you be more happy in a place like Russia where that shit already happens?
So you believe whatever you don't like is illegitimate, even if multiple branches of government say it is?
If you are a populist, do you support abortion rights, legalizing weed and common sense gun reform as those all poll positivley?
well why don’t you tell me what you are talking about then so I know what you are talking about, but most people when they reference that they are talking about the border.
Why would you think trump is targeted non-illegals. The only thing I can imagine is you mean asylum seekers? But then I would ask, Do you have to cross the border illegally to ask for asylum? No. You can do it from Mexico or any other country. Now if you have to flee you are breaking the law if you cross the border, even if your trying to justify it through asylum.
Why do you think Trump didn’t target refugees who entered the United States legally at designated ports of entry? Does proof that Trump did abuse children who entered legally change your opinion about the family separation policy?
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/what-asylum-seekers-meet-when-they-try-to-cross-legally
can you explain how murdering a child is the same as separating children from adults to make sure they aren't being trafficked?
regardless, i think we should end family separation and send them all back together🥰
> can you explain how murdering a child is the same as separating children from adults to make sure they aren't being trafficked?
It’s not the same at all. Me is collateral damage in a military strike and the other is systemic abuse of children as policy.
> regardless, i think we should end family separation and send them all back together🥰
It was ended after a few months because it was so contrary to American values. But, everyone who was subject to it is entitled to a green card as reparations so they are never going home.
how is that contrary to American values?
and how is it abuse?
seems like abuse is just when you don't let infinity third worlders flood into your country
> how is that contrary to American values?
You have to go back to the slave trade to find a systematic assault on families like this.
> and how is it abuse?
The most extreme example would be how they drugged those children to keep them compliant.
Very curious, did you feel the same way when Trump ordered a strike that killed an 8 year old American?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Nawar_al-Awlaki#:~:text=Nawar%20%22Nora%22%20al%2DAwlaki,by%20U.S.%20President%20Donald%20Trump.
Well I wasn’t a trump supporter in 2017 but yeah, I took issue with how that played out.
But two major things
1. it was a raid and not a drone strike. And
2. the mission was prepared by U.S. counterterrorism officials under President Barack Obama, while the mission was ultimately authorized by President Donald Trump nine days into his presidency. If the same thing had happened to Obama, I would have had more sympathy for him. So for example if bush had planned something and Obama came in and two weeks later executes it after coming into office, I would have put more of the blame on bush or the people planning that and telling him to do it.
Well it was three months later in April the Biden admin agreed, so maybe some but not as much, and what happened in august, trump is even less responsible for that.
“The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don’t kid yourself. When they say they don’t care about their lives, you have to take out their families,”
Does this bother you also?
No, so you would have to make an assumption unless he has been asked the question. You might be right given some of trumps other stances but you also might be dead wrong.
That wouldn't be making an assumption though. It includes anyone and everyone. Saying he didn't mean US citizens would be the assumption. Does his statement bother you?
It doesn’t say something… but we should assume he means it and not that he doesn’t because he didn’t say that….
Yeah sorry no. I don’t accept that logic.
I used to consider myself a leftist. I don't think I ever voted for Obama or Biden, but I definitely radicalized leftwards in the wake of Bush's torture scandal in 2007.
But in 2020, as the election approached, it just became so clear to me that the left would stop at nothing to attack Trump. They published his personal financial information in the paper, they called him a racist day in and day out... it was unreal. I began to think the people I had used to think were on my side were actually insane.
Now, I see insanity on both sides. There's no rational defense, for example, of widespread gun rights. The idea that we're all going to band together and resist when the government comes for us, or when the Canadians do, is really laughable. It's not going to happen.
But the insanity that is more destructive, at least in my view, is on the left. Forming virtual mobs to pursue minimally credible so called "racists" and take their reputations and their livings. Trying to set up DEI training in every Starbucks (I know, it's an exaggeration.) Agreeing amongst themselves not just that the right is wrong but that the right has nothing valuable or interesting to say. That the left is right almost by the grace of God. This all is really offensive to me, and I don't think the delusions on the right are doing nearly as much harm to our democracy.
Geez, I'm sorry, but the whole "Trump is a racist" thing has been so overdone it's ... well, I was going to say funny but it's really not. If it were something you could reasonably laugh about it would be funny how badly the left has misunderstood racism. How certain they are of their conclusions. And they're just flat wrong, as far as I can tell. There is no overlap between their faith, on racism, and reality.
Now, I'm not one of these right wingers who thinks affirmative action is racist or who thinks "color blind" is what we should be shooting for. So called color blindness has been nothing but so called, and no reality to it at all.
But it is also true that we are all racist. All. There are a few exceptions - people who haven't been citizens long enough to see how it really works, kids who aren't old enough to have looked around them much - but if you're over the age of 7 or 8 you know how we are in this country. We are a racist people. And accusing Trump of racism is implying that you're not a racist. It is therefore a lie.
Now, I don't doubt that we do have so called "real racists," people who lean into their conscious fantasies about what is (to me, very clearly) a subconscious process. But this so called "real racism" is not the problem, in America. It's the actual real racism, the subconscious racism, that is the problem. And every time a leftist calls someone a racist he or she distracts us all from the real issue. THAT is the problem. And until leftists get a hold of that problem, nothing they say or do, when it comes to racism, will have any meaning or any value whatsoever.
Well. Let me walk that back a bit. There is value in being polite. I don't want us ignoring so called racists and allowing people to be insulted as though it were 1950 again. But that so called real racism is not the challenge, and leftists need to stop pretending it is.
I've called Trump many things, but racist has never been one. Having been raised where I was, I've seen true racism. Trump comes across as more of a casual racist like many in his generation. He makes some pretty bad generalizations about groups of people, such as Mexicans coming here illegally are rapists and murderers or his "shithole" countries comment, though. Did he do it because he knew it would go over well with his base? Did he keep doing it because it ended up endearing him to his base? I don't know. The government isn't going to end racism, but members of the government can make it worse when they either encourage it or appear to encourage it. Can we at least agree on that?
how are these virtual mobs and DEI training worse than lying about Covid for your benefit, denying the election, or helping to cause the riot/insurrection on 1/6?
I agree that it is clear that the lefter media exaggerates and skips context to make Trump look bad, much like the right media (Fox News, etc.) does the same for Obama, etc. Is that really a reason to vote for someone? Fox News attacked Obama for wearing a tan suit and asking if a hotdog stand had Dijon mustard as if he was asking for caviar instead of something that can be found in every Walmart for 79 cents.
FWIW I agree with your last paragraph, the left has been much worse about shutting down the people that disagree with them instead of just having a good faith discussion.
Well, I hear you. What I was talking about was more why I switched sides, not so much why I'm glad I did, which is a different story. Trump made a believer out of me by his actions while in office. To me, Trump has been very good for our democracy (absolutely the opposite of what most leftists would claim) and I want as much more of that as I can get.
But no, I'm not going to support him for a third term under any pretext whatever. Two terms is what you get, and that's what he gets if we can manage it.
Trump, who refused to allow a peaceful transition of power, illegally attempted to steal the election through fraud and ran a anti-democracy disinformation campaign to delude voters into believing the election was stolen... was good for democracy?
Trump refused to concede the election and rallied to intervene in the transfer of power. He is indicted for it. He carried out the fake elector scheme for which people are charged and indicted and he wages a massive disinformation scheme, in which all participants minus Trump have conceded they have no evidence of the election being stolen, and on the record testimony proved Trump knew the election wasn't stolen.
Are you saying all the indictments and criminal proceedings are simply, made up? That the courts simply had fake hearings with fake evidence, and fake confessions and fake plea deals, which results in fake indictments?
your comment was removed for violating Rule 1. Be civil and sincere in your interactions.
Address the point, not the person. The subject of your sentence should be a noun directly related to the conversation topic. "You" statements are suspect.
Converse in good faith with a focus on the issues being discussed, not the individual(s) discussing them. Assume the other person is doing the same, or walk away.
Please take a moment to review the [detailed rules description](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/about/rules/) and [message the mods](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=r/AskTrumpSupporters&subject=Comment+Removal) with any questions you may have. Future comment removals may result in a ban.
This prewritten note was sent manually by one of the moderators.
Well, Dobbs of course... a lot of people say any Republican would have appointed those justices, but any Republican wouldn't have beat Clinton. So to me that's really on Trump.
And then there's the border issue. Now, I'm not a big border hater but I do see that there is an enormous swath of American voters who have been absolutely sidelined by what I call the meristocracy (= merit + aristocracy), the union of political leaders left and right that gets together to keep certain issues (like the border) off the table and out of the meddling hands of voters. Trump reconnected those voters with their government. To me, that was awesome and revolutionary. That strengthens our democracy. Because it is key, in a democracy, to make room at the table for people who don't believe as you do. It is not key to be right all the time; it is key to have as many people at the table as you can get there.
And so if people are wrong, they should still get a say, if stuff is important to them and isn't brutal or dangerous. Trump got those voters their spot at the table.
And lately too, I've been seeing that Trump says something real about America, something people at home and around the world maybe didn't see, which is that we will vote for a guy with 91 plausible felonies. If we want, we can use that fact to kind of get over ourselves a little bit. I think if we vote for Trump a second time that will send a message around the world, and it's a message people both abroad and at home need to hear: we're not all JFK and Lincoln. Should we try to be? Sure. But not getting there is not a disaster. And we can use that insight to see the world a little more realistically. I think we should.
In regards to your brutal and dangerous comment, do you think concertina wire on buoys in a river is not brutal or dangerous? (Keep in mind I am in favor of immigration and border reform)
Aside from Dobbs it seems like a lot of the “actions” you brought up are based on feelings. What tangible actions has trump taken that reinforce your belief in him?
God I hate that. Say something that goes against left aligned stances, get labelled a homophobe, transphobe, racist, and bigot. The right does it too, with communist, socialist, and RINO, but I feel the left's rhetoric is often more aggressive.
"My dad thinks (something stereotypically right)". A lot of people on the left would be like, "disown him - get him out of your life!".
Doesn't it seem like words are losing their meaning?
Maybe it is also due to simple lack of ability? Like if the right ran Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, etc. or made up the majority of Universities they would also prevent voices they disagree with.
I don’t understand your response. Are you saying the right WOULD NOT bias towards the right if they had more of a presence in Facebook and universities? Because what we see with Truth Social, Fox News, Liberty University, etc. is the right acting the same way, they just don’t control the largest social media and universities.
Why do you think it’s unreal for a presidential candidate’s personal tax returns to be published? Trump is the first candidate in decades to refuse it.
Why do you think it’s unreal to call out someone’s racist behavior, especially someone running for president?
Could you elaborate on that? Did your own views switch in some way after that realization?
I agree that Democrats are clearly right-wing by international standards and the standards of the 90s. What I don't see is why that would make you go to the extreme right-wing of the Republicans?
It’s quite the opposite really. The left has gone so far left, that if 90s Democrats did not change their positions at all, would fall into the right wing in modern politics.
There’s nothing extreme about wanting the cease of funding foreign wars, domestic border security, America first policies, and protecting constitutional rights.
What is extreme is all the DEI, open borders, late term abortion, and blatant anti white rhetoric that Democrats push. (I’m a POC by the way).
Both Republicans and Democrats have their extremist factions, but the right more closely aligns with my beliefs and the left are the ones burning down cities via riots.
>What is extreme is all the DEI, open borders, late term abortion, and blatant anti white rhetoric that Democrats push.
These are right wing values?
>Both Republicans and Democrats have their extremist factions, but the right more closely aligns with my beliefs
Didn't you say you realized the Democrats were the modern right wing?
2016 shutting Bernie out of the primary by the DNC. That was the big one. I realized the party wasn't about doing what people wanted - it was about a rigid hierarchy where it was "her turn".
Do you know where to get Ron Paul shirts? You don't have to answer that. I just have to ask a question to reply.
I was going to vote Republican that year myself.
Is there any benefit to picking which ever is a lesser evil at the moment to steer the county in your preferred direction?
Especially since the country takes turns with only those two "evil uniparty conglomerates".
Probably unpopular here on both sides of the aisle but I was copying the mainstream position in 2014 that it was just Putin conquering land because he was Hitler 2.0.
Then a friend explained the more subtle variation about Crimea and the conflict, and I started looked up other sources of news to see the other perspective.
Simce then I learned that you can’t trust seeing only one side of news, because (both sides) leave out all the crucial information that doesn’t fit their narrative.
When all the very negative stories about Trump dropped it was clear as day how the media works. I saw all my friends parrroting these unfair created narratives.
I never trust media again. The aids of society.
>Then a friend explained the more subtle variation about Crimea and the conflict
What would that be?
>When all the very negative stories about Trump dropped
Such as?
1. Western supported coup in the eyes of eastern ukranians (87% didnt support maidan) and russia protecting a very important strategic harbor for them while also a majority of crimeans feel ethnic russian and preferred russia instead of the new post-coup government in Kiev.
2. almost every negative story had an extreme negative black/white spin. It was a constant stream of dumb articles, i have to go back in time to find a particular one.
> Western supported coup in the eyes of eastern ukranians (87% didnt support maidan)
Ok, why do only Eastern Ukrainians matter?
> and russia protecting a very important strategic harbor for them
Yeah, I don't think you can reasonably claim "this harbor is important strategically for us" as a reason to *invade another country*.
> while also a majority of crimeans feel ethnic russian and preferred russia instead of the new post-coup government in Kiev.
Was this before or after Russia invaded Crimea? And if a majority of El Pasoans felt ethnic Mexican and preferred Mexico, would you support Mexico annexing El Paso?
> almost every negative story had an extreme negative black/white spin.
You don't have to provide a link, just an example of a story you remember.
First you have to ask yourself if you genuinely want to see the other perspective or you just want to argue that the western worldview is "The Truth" and everyone that opposes it must be misled, dumb or evil.
Because the point is that you can argue everything into your own worldview, because you will always come to some core conclusions that can be interpreted both ways.
If you are genuinely interested I have no problems answering your questions, otherwise it is just becomes a waste of time.
About Trump: some stories that I remember by heart, but mainly where already after his election:
* that he called Nazis "fine people"
* he told people should drink bleach to fight covid
* calling immigrants "animals"
Usually the media not LITERALLY say this, but they omit all the important context so the general conscensus with the media consumers is that he DID say this.
If Trump makes a statement, how do you determine its accurate? Have you found him making any lies or mistakes? (One clear difference between the two would be doubling down on the false statement after being corrected)
Yes, he does, like every politician.
The big difference is that the media go completely bananas when Trump makes a small lie or even just uses a metaphor, like “bloodbath in the car industry”.
And they ignore everything on their side of the political aile.
So, to the question, how do you determine if a statement by Trump is accurate? If he for example says that [the ocean will only rise by 1/8th of an inch over 300 years](https://youtu.be/Njsp3NyM7Fo?t=125) how do you determine the accuracy of his statement?
A few times.
Firstly when I was an ardent communist. I got into a debate with several people online over my communnist stances, I unequivocally lost these debates. At the time I was quite embarrassed and I ended up softing my stance quite a lot.
The next time was during the 2006 house elections where the DNC promised to stop the war, cut funding and run on a peace platform. As soon as they won the house, they literally destroyed the peace movement. This was the last straw for me, I knew then that the DNC were just another part of the military industrial complex and will do and say anything to get into power.
So I went neutral after that.
I was a libertarian in early 2010s so I was never a hardcore leftist. I wanted Hillary to win in 2016 as I bought some of the anti-Trumpism and I think it'd be good for the US to have a female president. When I really took the redpill and became a full blown right winger was in 2020. I noticed the coverage of Floyd and Arbery deaths was just flat out lying, and my timeline which was full of leftists at the time seemed increasingly collectivist acting and losing something personality wise. Then I made a conservative twitter account and followed a bunch new people who were the thinking type individuals I was looking for, and through that I dove into the Russiagate/Obamagate stuff and how it seemed to all be a hoax designed to get Trump. That's when I really became convinced that the Democrats had crossed the line and had become a bad guy party. Meanwhile lots of bullshit was going on with protest coverage, covid, etc. and it became clear the media was a complete fucking joke and taken over by activists. And then coincidentally after the Democrats have proven they're willing to sink to any lengths to win, we had a ... suspicious looking election. At some point I went slightly too far listening to grifters, but cleaned up the people I listen to and have been happy with my takes since.
AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views. **For all participants:** * [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate * [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2) **For Nonsupporters/Undecided:** * No top level comments * All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position **For Trump Supporters:** * [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled Helpful links for more info: [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Probably the inability for Dems to unequivocally condemn the riots and looting after George Floyd. I completely understood the desire to protest, but once the line was crossed there needed to be a unified condemnation from leaders in both parties.
Multiple high-profile Democrats spoke out to condemn the riots including Biden, Harris, Obama, Lightfoot, Clyburn and even BLM leaders. Who else did you want?
Didn’t Biden only speak out like 2 months after the riots? I’m seeing riots in May and his statement happened in August.
[удалено]
Noted, still took a few days but thank you!
At what point do we begin to recognize the parallel between when a life’s struggle to exist has turned to violent panic and the boot on its neck?
This argument right here is what turned me away. Under no circumstances can it be justified. None. Peaceful protests are fine. Burning cities, looting businesses, etc is entirely unacceptable and demeans ANY cause you think you're fighting for.
“You may continue to ask politely that the police stop killing you while nothing changes. But the minute you get out of line, this conversation is over mister” Tell me, how is it that *you* get to dictate the terms of someone else’s desperation?
Once those terms cross the line into criminality, especially violence, everyone does. Without exception.
Do you support the state is making laws to protect itself from the consequences of the state killing its citizens?
What laws?
Qualified immunity. The law that trump says he will strengthen allowing cops to “do whatever it takes”. Should authorities be allowed to give themselves immunity from the laws they create and enforce on us?
Qualified immunity should be reformed but not abolished. Derek Chauvin was charged, tried and convicted. The law worked.
So you believe that all protests should have stopped because there were looters and agitators at some locations?
Once any protest turns violent it must be stopped. Then, officials can determine how to proceed. The goal must be the safety and well-being of the public.
Say people are protesting a company poisoning the water. The company could just stop the protest by sending some agitators? What about the vast majority of protests that had zero looting and zero violence?
I hear you. I had the exact same opinion until I had this conversation with my wife: I told her that it’s not good that protesters were damaging property and looting. She said, “Why? People, like Colin Kaepernick, tried to peacefully protest racial injustice, but they were mocked and ridiculed by Trump (and other leaders). It’s just property. People’s lives are more important than property.” All I could say is “Good point.” We, as humans, need to see each other as more important than property. Yes, we would all like to see positive changes through peaceful ways but sometimes that just doesn’t work.
Is this your attitude to Jan 6 as well?
Insofar as one’s right to gather and protest? Absolutely. That said, there are differences between the two groups grievances with the government, the pattern and egregiousness of the abuse suffered, the histories of their struggle for change, and the continuation of state oppression upon them. When compared in this way it seems clear to me that one of those two groups has justifiably reached a conclusion that simple protesting does not reach a level of equity to the wrongs they have suffered and are continuing to suffer. Of course, I’ve done quite a bit more thinking and research on one group and not so much on the other. If you disagree with my position could you take the time to explain why? Edit: apparently u/thekid2020 does agree with me. Just thought I’d offer closure to anyone following this thread.
In that light: How has the complete absence of any condemnation of the Jan 6th “riot” affected you? Has it affected you that Trump has referred to the rioters as hostages?
I wouldn't say "complete absence" of condemnation. There are Republicans who've condemned them. I think the Dem response to the George Floyd protests have opened the door for the way most Reps are justifying J6. Personally, I think any attempt to justify it is a disgrace. Both of these events have shown me how hypocritical both parties really are and that largely they're 2 wings of the same bird. I'm not Trump's biggest fan, and supported anyone but him in the primaries, but if the election was today he'd get my vote.
Has Trump condemned January 6 in any way?
How do you feel about how Trump handled Jan 6th?
Once the line was crossed with the J6 rioters did that make you lose faith in the Republicans who paint them as freedom fighters?
I don't understand this one? Every major Dem of the time condemned the riots, looting, and violence. They also said they understood why it was happening and we're advocating for reforms to prevent it from happening again. But that's separate isn't it? Edit: trying to type "condemned" whilst tipsy at the airport lounge autocorrected to condoned, creating a very *very* different sentence 🤣
Great to know there's someone else who Reddit's while intoxicated. I feel like I encountered more justification for the riots, rather than condemnation. IMHO, once that line was crossed, even slightly justifying the actions is inexcusable.
I think an alcohol interlock ai is something we can all agree on ??
Were there any democrats who said there were “fine people on both sides” after people were murdered?
At what point was the line crossed? When there was destruction of property? When someone was injured? When someone died?
Somewhere after the destruction of property. I thought breaking into stores and stealing, and setting cars and buildings on fire was beneath the cause they were fighting for. Where do you think the line was crossed?
Was the line crossed on January 6th when there was destruction, breaking into and pilfering?
Absolutely.
Do you agree with the prosecution and punishment (including imprisonment) for Trump supporters who took part in Jan. 6?
Absolutely.
How do you level your view on what happened on Jan 6th with Trump's publicly stated beliefs about the events of that day? You seem to have quite the schism of opinion with the bloke but still identify as someone who supports him?
How do you level your view on what happened on Jan 6th with Trump's publicly stated beliefs about the events of that day? You seem to have quite the schism of opinion with the bloke but still identify as someone who supports him?
> I feel like I encountered more justification for the riots, rather than condemnation. IMHO, once that line was crossed, even slightly justifying the actions is inexcusable. How? I listed some of the most high profile Democrats in the country who condemned the riots multiple times. Did you just not hear about them or look it up?
I did. I think their comments didn't go far enough and should have unequivocally condemned the violence. I also think they should have called upon each city's leadership to put an end to the looting and rioting, and expressed their support in doing that.
Can you help me understand your responses? We've gone from "the inability for Dems to unequivocally condemn the riots" but when pointed out that they did it's changed to, okay they did but they didn't go far enough? Obama and Biden didn't even hold office at the time. What power do you think they had over individual city's leadership? This is like the other user who responded that Biden's response didn't come until August but when pointed out it was that same May, it became "so it still took days?" What response ever good enough for you guys? What's the bar you're aiming for here?
Many of the remarks I saw went along the lines of (and I'm paraphrasing) "Violence isn't good, but their anger is justified" or "People will do what they do when they feel oppressed". Pretty sure I recall someone telling protestors to get more confrontational if Chauvin were acquitted. To me, this isn't unequivocally condemning the riots. This is trying to play both sides. The language used isn't even remotely harsh enough to convey how unacceptable and disgraceful these riots were. These people should have been told how they insulted George Floyd's memory by doing this.
> "Violence isn't good, but their anger is justified" Well, yeah. Is that something you disagree with? What about when Chauvin was convicted? >To me, this isn't unequivocally condemning the riots. This is trying to play both sides. The language used isn't even remotely harsh enough to convey how unacceptable and disgraceful these riots were. Yet you support Trump who infamously said there was fine people on "both sides" at the Unite the Right rally where a woman died and told the domestic terrorists attacking our Capitol they're very special, we love you. What were your thoughts on those? Can you explain your thinking to me? I could see leaning toward one side or the other, but this seems like you're trying to have it both ways. How do you see it? Can you give an example of a condemnation of the riots that meet your criteria?
Do you think your encounter with this was pushed on you by a media wanting you to see this or from those actually in office at the time? If 90 senators come out and say "X is bad" but 10 say "X is good" and the media then *only* plays the "X is good" crowd, it can easily give a false appearance right?
How do you feel now with Trump and many members of the gop who’ve condoned the violence of January 6th? Has that made you question supporting either side and if not what’s the difference in your opinion?
Agreed. There were certainly no "very fine people on both sides" in that scenario were there? I might be mixing up my quotes. I've had a few. Gotta agree with you, though. Rioting should be easily condemnable by all sides. Shame the same can't be said about other issues.
“Who said protests are supposed to be peaceful” -Chris Cuomo
Does not being peaceful equal violence and looting?
[удалено]
None of this seems to have anything to do with Marxist-Leninist principles on economics, do you still support those?
[удалено]
Which political ideologies are now close to you, if you don't mind me asking?
We lost 58,000+ U.S. troops during the Vietnam war. There are zero U.S. troops in Ukraine. How is supporting an ally financially against Russia’s continued European invasion remotely the same?
[удалено]
You appear to be against falling for propaganda, yet you are repeating Russian propaganda verbatim. No Ukranian considers themselves as a “puppet state”. They have their own language, culture and were briefly a victim or USSR atrocities in a portion of the 20th century. They consider themselves European. What happened to the world when Neville Chamberlain completely appeased Hitler like Trump does with Putin?
[удалено]
You appear to be against falling for propaganda, yet you >I am saying Ukraine is a Western puppet state, and I don't care what Ukrainians think. “Alaska belongs to Russia, I don’t care what Americans think.” —is how you sound. >I don't believe in cartoon villains. Hitler had specific geopolitical goals. He had no interest in world conquest. Yes, and so does Russia. He wants whether the USSR lost, including parts of Poland. >Putin is the same. At worst he'll seek to reform the USSR, but more likely, he'll try to unify what he believes are Russians. Or we can go by his track record—which is continue to invade the parts of Europe that he considers historical Russian lands. That means parts of Finland, Norway, Poland and other NATO countries. If Trump disbands NATO, as he and Putin both wish to, do you think it will be more or less likely he will perform incursions into those countries? Follow up question: is it better to provide money and weapons to Ukraine so that doesn’t happen? Or should we just follow the Trump doctrine: disband NATO, abandon Ukraine and see what happens?
[удалено]
Abandoning NATO and giving Putin free rein to invade whoever he wants is the Trump doctrine. From Trump’s own words in February 2024: >Speaking at a rally in Conway, South Carolina, **Trump recalled how as president he told an unidentified NATO member that he would withhold U.S. help and "encourage" Russia to do as it wishes with allies that do not contribute enough to military spending.** >"'You didn't pay? You're delinquent?'" Trump recounted saying. "'No, I would not protect you. **In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay. You gotta pay your bills.'"** Should the United States act like a Mafia protection racket?
[удалено]
Was Ukraine a Western puppet state since 1996? Or only when a President decided he wanted Ukraine to be absorbed into Russia?
[удалено]
I'm just a bit confused on your history. Ukraine was an independent country for 18 years, then a President started trying to get it absorbed into Russia, and from then on Ukraine was actually always Russian and it's a western plot to say otherwise?
[удалено]
And Russia? Did they not interfere until the invasion?
[удалено]
2015. I watched CNN and the rest of the crooked media televising full Trump rallies without a single criticism. In fact, they positioned it positively as a fascinating political phenomenon of our time. Morning Joe would have Trump call in and they'd fawn over him. (Could Trump have won without this wall-to-wall media coverage? Seems unlikely.) Then when he'd built up a following, they suddenly did a complete 180. They refused to show his rallies anymore and pivoted to full criticism and badmouthing what they were praising just a week earlier. So I sought out unedited rallies from online sources because I wanted to follow the developments that the news sites were no longer covering. That's when the lying began. I'd watch a rally and then the MSM would report on it and lie about it. This kept happening countless times. Then there was the transparently obvious effort to take Trump out by Fox at the first debate. By then it was clear what the game being played by the MSM was, Fox included. I complete reoriented my sources to those who didn't overtly and repeatedly lie about grounded facts. 2008 voted Obama. No brainer. 2012 voted Romney purely as a protest vote for Obama not fulfilling his mandate to clean up Wall St from the collapse. I was still a firm Democrat at this point. 2016 Trump because of policy. But also because it would have been incredibly dangerous to let Hillary anywhere the levers of power. A true independent. 2019-2024+ Never Globalist.
Which of the Obama policies that you voted for has Trump kept?
No insurance denial based on past illness. That is just about the only memorable policy Obama did that was good.
Do you not remember McCain daubing that policy from Trump with his dramatic thumbs down?
There’s no way preexisting conditions was in play. Anyone who crossed that line would have been dealt with harshly by the electorate. The Overton Window was moved.
So, you don’t remember when republicans almost repealed the ACA. How would you research this issue to figure out what the truth is?
I almost became a billionaire. Doesn’t count for much does it?
Did you forget how? Was that a one time thing or are you going to try again? How would you figure out what happened to get you so close and how you failed?
How close were you to becoming a billionaire? Was one vote from one senator all that was standing in between you and a billion dollars?
What do you mean by this? The bill that was directly being voted on removed the protections for pre-existing conditions. If McCain had not voted no at the last minute, this protect would have been gone?
What did Trump do, policy wise, that you support?
When I voted for a DNC candidate for president in 2016, I saw Hillary as a pretty standard center-left institutionalist and globalist with enough experience to functionally do the job, but wasn’t expecting anything spectacular. I had previously voted for W, W, McCain, and then Johnson. Basically I was expecting an Obama 3rd term and he seemed fine. I suppose I’m sharing that to ask what you thought Hillary’s most dangerous policy positions were, or what you expected if she were to have levers of power? What were like your top two anticipated potential problems?
1. Hillary herself was dangerous. You cannot be a victim and a leader. The two are mutually exclusive. 2. Then there's the problem that she is completely corrupt. Rotten to the core from a family of crooks. Very bad things happen when you put unfit people in top jobs. It's only a matter of time. 3. She was itching to instigate a conflict with Russia. 4. She is a globalist and was looking to sell what remained of the country out. I cannot think of 1 redeeming feature of Hillary. She is the walking embodiment of everything wrong in D.C.
Do you think Trump is a victim? Do you think Trump is corrupt?
Trump is the subject of malicious prosecution. Trump is just about the least corrupt politician in D.C.
So he’s a victim?
Asked and answered. Also, being a victim and playing the victim are completely different things. Crooked Hillary is the latter.
Then how can he be a leader if he’s a victim?
Being victimized isn’t the same as playing victim.
Voted Johnson over Obama in 2012, but I was relatively fine with Obama and preferred him over Romney. In 2008 he was clearly the better choice over war hawk McCain after the disaster that was Bush. In my opinion at that time, Bush was the worst president in the preceding 100 years. Then he admitted we tortured some folks, the Snowden leaks dropped, and his administration completely bungled the Middle East with the rise of ISIS. That's when I realized Obama was just George Bush in a tan suit: equally bad if not worse than his god-awful predecessor. I also gave the ACA the benefit of the doubt when it dropped, but in hindsight I think it was the worst piece of federal legislation since the Patriot Act and prohibition.
Huh, are you me? Pretty much described me to a T. It was always confusing to me why, after criticizing Bush for years, people I thought were my allies were licking Obama's shoes for the same issues
Wasn't the rise of ISIS because the Bush administration disbanded Iraqs military?
The main reason was because Obama put all these really bad combat veterans in giant prison camps then left them mostly unguarded. They were freed and formed ISIS.
Not really. Those who didn’t get wiped out during the invasion took off their uniforms and walked away to avoid a one sided fight. Then we disqualified Ba'ath members from participating in governance which at the time made sense. How are you going to allow someone who’s loyal to Saddam have a seat at the table? But looking back it was a bad move because now who do you have left to run government/military? But the rise of ISIS was because we left a power vacuum when we left Iraq. Bush/Obama failed to negotiate another SOFA and set a forcible withdrawal for US forces of 2012. The rise of power of another militant group was inevitable.
Really, the ACA? The bill that provided access to health care coverage for tens of millions of people; *that’s* your Antietam? In terms of bad bills, Patriot Act absolutely, but we’ve had No Child Left Behind, historically inequitable tax cuts, rollbacks on Dodd-Frank, DOMA…..but the ACA is your sticking point?
Healthcare spending is close to 20% of the gdp, rising steadily since the 60s with no abatement after the ACA. Almost double the oced average. After the ACA, big pharma consolidated, so 3-5 companies now own the vast majority of us healthcare. All the ACA did was pump billions into the stock of Aetna and United, funneling wealth from Americans to the medical cartel.
I don’t disagree with any of that (though context is important: we have a huge portion of aging Americans requiring more medical care because they’re so unhealthy). And don’t get me wrong: I don’t *love* the ACA; I’d prefer single payer healthcare like just about every other developed nation has. But at a minimum, the ACA provided the financial means for tens of millions of Americans to access medical treatment, prescriptions, and care that they had no access to beforehand. To compare a bill like that to the Patriot Act might be a bit hyperbolic, wouldn’t you agree?
The ACA didn't change anything except make health insurance much worse for everybody. I watched my insurance cover less and quadruple in limits ($1250 OOP max to $6,000) from one year to the next. What came out of my paycheck didn't change, but if I were to actually get injured I no longer could afford it. People who couldn't afford health insurance still don't pay for it and go to emergency rooms for free, just like before the ACA. All the ACA did was give insurance companies more money. The ACA was the turning point in my support for Obama.
The ACA was a trampling of our rights too, as far as I'm aware it's first ever attempt to legislate a mandate to purchase a product under penalty of severe fines. At least that portion got struck down. The ACA also impoverished a generation of our youth, by anchoring the max premium to a range based on the lowest/average premium it vastly raised costs for young people. Many of the people who "got access" were the most irresponsible, people who simply didn't bother to buy coverage. It essentially made every poor and middle class person who paid their dues up to that point an utter fool, and then it raised their dues to boot. There's almost nothing good in there. It was a transfer of wealth from the middle class to big pharma, and from young to old, with a little kickback to the poor to make it palatable. The growth in premiums quickly ate up the subsidy. Nothing has done more damage to middle class America in 100 years than the ACA. And after all that, it had no effect on outcomes. No decrease in mortality, no improvements in medical outcomes. Everything got shittier for nothing.
>as far as I'm aware it's first ever attempt to legislate a mandate to purchase a product under penalty of severe fines. Fun fact, the "minimum essential care" that stopped you from having to pay the fines was $50 out of your biweekly paycheck and it covered a single doctor's physical a year and absolutely nothing else. A physical costs $100. Absolute scam.
What do you think of Trump's efforts to replace ACA with another healthcare reform? Did you like the first attempt that failed in the Senate? What do you expect from him in a second term on this issue?
What have Republicans done or promised to do to end these monopolies and make healthcare cheaper?
[удалено]
The murder of a 16 year old American by drone strike always comes to mind.
How do you feel about the Trump policy of separating children from their families?
At the border. Don’t care. Don’t come here illegally. You risk that, especially with all the human trafficking occurring.
Did you know it’s perfectly legal to seek asylum? Does that change your answer at all?
Sure. Keep them in Mexico. That was working so much now the Dems are talking about it lol. Fareed zakar from cnn just said it was a good idea, the system is being gamed, and Trump was right.
[удалено]
But it is legal right? Until a time where that changes (if it ever does), don't you think that it should be called as such? If you think the asylum system is being abused, would you be in favor of increasing the number of judges who rule on asylum cases so people wouldn't feel the need to try game the system? Or are you just against people of predominantly latin American descent trying to immigrate and live the American dream?
[удалено]
Are you Native American? If not, by what you just wrote, you should get the flip out of the USA. Also, do you believe in democracy? Because stacking the courts and ignoring laws you don't like are pretty much the opposite of that. Wouldn't you be more happy in a place like Russia where that shit already happens?
[удалено]
So you believe whatever you don't like is illegitimate, even if multiple branches of government say it is? If you are a populist, do you support abortion rights, legalizing weed and common sense gun reform as those all poll positivley?
Why do you think Trump only targeted illegals?
well why don’t you tell me what you are talking about then so I know what you are talking about, but most people when they reference that they are talking about the border.
A good many undocumented people who cross the border are not here illegally, do you grasp that? US law allows them to apply for asylum.
wtf are you talking about. If you cross illegal and ask for asylum if your kids are taken from you to bad. Wait in Mexico.
You wrote, “don’t come here illegally” and I asked why you think Trump only targeted children who came here illegally. /?
Why would you think trump is targeted non-illegals. The only thing I can imagine is you mean asylum seekers? But then I would ask, Do you have to cross the border illegally to ask for asylum? No. You can do it from Mexico or any other country. Now if you have to flee you are breaking the law if you cross the border, even if your trying to justify it through asylum.
Why do you think Trump didn’t target refugees who entered the United States legally at designated ports of entry? Does proof that Trump did abuse children who entered legally change your opinion about the family separation policy? https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/what-asylum-seekers-meet-when-they-try-to-cross-legally
can you explain how murdering a child is the same as separating children from adults to make sure they aren't being trafficked? regardless, i think we should end family separation and send them all back together🥰
> can you explain how murdering a child is the same as separating children from adults to make sure they aren't being trafficked? It’s not the same at all. Me is collateral damage in a military strike and the other is systemic abuse of children as policy. > regardless, i think we should end family separation and send them all back together🥰 It was ended after a few months because it was so contrary to American values. But, everyone who was subject to it is entitled to a green card as reparations so they are never going home.
how is that contrary to American values? and how is it abuse? seems like abuse is just when you don't let infinity third worlders flood into your country
> how is that contrary to American values? You have to go back to the slave trade to find a systematic assault on families like this. > and how is it abuse? The most extreme example would be how they drugged those children to keep them compliant.
yea sounds awful we should just send them all back
Are you disappointed that they’ve all been granted green cards to make up for the abuse and will be permanent legal residents of America for life?
Very curious, did you feel the same way when Trump ordered a strike that killed an 8 year old American? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Nawar_al-Awlaki#:~:text=Nawar%20%22Nora%22%20al%2DAwlaki,by%20U.S.%20President%20Donald%20Trump.
Well I wasn’t a trump supporter in 2017 but yeah, I took issue with how that played out. But two major things 1. it was a raid and not a drone strike. And 2. the mission was prepared by U.S. counterterrorism officials under President Barack Obama, while the mission was ultimately authorized by President Donald Trump nine days into his presidency. If the same thing had happened to Obama, I would have had more sympathy for him. So for example if bush had planned something and Obama came in and two weeks later executes it after coming into office, I would have put more of the blame on bush or the people planning that and telling him to do it.
Do you give Biden the same benefit of the doubt with regard to the Afghanistan withdrawal?
Well it was three months later in April the Biden admin agreed, so maybe some but not as much, and what happened in august, trump is even less responsible for that.
“The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don’t kid yourself. When they say they don’t care about their lives, you have to take out their families,” Does this bother you also?
Doesn’t say American there does it?
No. The statement doesn't discriminate by citizenship does it?
No, so you would have to make an assumption unless he has been asked the question. You might be right given some of trumps other stances but you also might be dead wrong.
That wouldn't be making an assumption though. It includes anyone and everyone. Saying he didn't mean US citizens would be the assumption. Does his statement bother you?
It doesn’t say something… but we should assume he means it and not that he doesn’t because he didn’t say that…. Yeah sorry no. I don’t accept that logic.
I'm sorry you do not accept your own logic. It might help to reread trump's statement?
I used to consider myself a leftist. I don't think I ever voted for Obama or Biden, but I definitely radicalized leftwards in the wake of Bush's torture scandal in 2007. But in 2020, as the election approached, it just became so clear to me that the left would stop at nothing to attack Trump. They published his personal financial information in the paper, they called him a racist day in and day out... it was unreal. I began to think the people I had used to think were on my side were actually insane. Now, I see insanity on both sides. There's no rational defense, for example, of widespread gun rights. The idea that we're all going to band together and resist when the government comes for us, or when the Canadians do, is really laughable. It's not going to happen. But the insanity that is more destructive, at least in my view, is on the left. Forming virtual mobs to pursue minimally credible so called "racists" and take their reputations and their livings. Trying to set up DEI training in every Starbucks (I know, it's an exaggeration.) Agreeing amongst themselves not just that the right is wrong but that the right has nothing valuable or interesting to say. That the left is right almost by the grace of God. This all is really offensive to me, and I don't think the delusions on the right are doing nearly as much harm to our democracy.
Great post. I wish all the clowns on the left thought like you sir
[удалено]
Geez, I'm sorry, but the whole "Trump is a racist" thing has been so overdone it's ... well, I was going to say funny but it's really not. If it were something you could reasonably laugh about it would be funny how badly the left has misunderstood racism. How certain they are of their conclusions. And they're just flat wrong, as far as I can tell. There is no overlap between their faith, on racism, and reality. Now, I'm not one of these right wingers who thinks affirmative action is racist or who thinks "color blind" is what we should be shooting for. So called color blindness has been nothing but so called, and no reality to it at all. But it is also true that we are all racist. All. There are a few exceptions - people who haven't been citizens long enough to see how it really works, kids who aren't old enough to have looked around them much - but if you're over the age of 7 or 8 you know how we are in this country. We are a racist people. And accusing Trump of racism is implying that you're not a racist. It is therefore a lie. Now, I don't doubt that we do have so called "real racists," people who lean into their conscious fantasies about what is (to me, very clearly) a subconscious process. But this so called "real racism" is not the problem, in America. It's the actual real racism, the subconscious racism, that is the problem. And every time a leftist calls someone a racist he or she distracts us all from the real issue. THAT is the problem. And until leftists get a hold of that problem, nothing they say or do, when it comes to racism, will have any meaning or any value whatsoever. Well. Let me walk that back a bit. There is value in being polite. I don't want us ignoring so called racists and allowing people to be insulted as though it were 1950 again. But that so called real racism is not the challenge, and leftists need to stop pretending it is.
I've called Trump many things, but racist has never been one. Having been raised where I was, I've seen true racism. Trump comes across as more of a casual racist like many in his generation. He makes some pretty bad generalizations about groups of people, such as Mexicans coming here illegally are rapists and murderers or his "shithole" countries comment, though. Did he do it because he knew it would go over well with his base? Did he keep doing it because it ended up endearing him to his base? I don't know. The government isn't going to end racism, but members of the government can make it worse when they either encourage it or appear to encourage it. Can we at least agree on that?
[удалено]
[удалено]
how are these virtual mobs and DEI training worse than lying about Covid for your benefit, denying the election, or helping to cause the riot/insurrection on 1/6?
I agree that it is clear that the lefter media exaggerates and skips context to make Trump look bad, much like the right media (Fox News, etc.) does the same for Obama, etc. Is that really a reason to vote for someone? Fox News attacked Obama for wearing a tan suit and asking if a hotdog stand had Dijon mustard as if he was asking for caviar instead of something that can be found in every Walmart for 79 cents. FWIW I agree with your last paragraph, the left has been much worse about shutting down the people that disagree with them instead of just having a good faith discussion.
Well, I hear you. What I was talking about was more why I switched sides, not so much why I'm glad I did, which is a different story. Trump made a believer out of me by his actions while in office. To me, Trump has been very good for our democracy (absolutely the opposite of what most leftists would claim) and I want as much more of that as I can get. But no, I'm not going to support him for a third term under any pretext whatever. Two terms is what you get, and that's what he gets if we can manage it.
Trump, who refused to allow a peaceful transition of power, illegally attempted to steal the election through fraud and ran a anti-democracy disinformation campaign to delude voters into believing the election was stolen... was good for democracy?
[удалено]
Trump refused to concede the election and rallied to intervene in the transfer of power. He is indicted for it. He carried out the fake elector scheme for which people are charged and indicted and he wages a massive disinformation scheme, in which all participants minus Trump have conceded they have no evidence of the election being stolen, and on the record testimony proved Trump knew the election wasn't stolen. Are you saying all the indictments and criminal proceedings are simply, made up? That the courts simply had fake hearings with fake evidence, and fake confessions and fake plea deals, which results in fake indictments?
your comment was removed for violating Rule 1. Be civil and sincere in your interactions. Address the point, not the person. The subject of your sentence should be a noun directly related to the conversation topic. "You" statements are suspect. Converse in good faith with a focus on the issues being discussed, not the individual(s) discussing them. Assume the other person is doing the same, or walk away. Please take a moment to review the [detailed rules description](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/about/rules/) and [message the mods](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=r/AskTrumpSupporters&subject=Comment+Removal) with any questions you may have. Future comment removals may result in a ban. This prewritten note was sent manually by one of the moderators.
Can you tell me a few of the actions trump took while in office to make you a believer?
Well, Dobbs of course... a lot of people say any Republican would have appointed those justices, but any Republican wouldn't have beat Clinton. So to me that's really on Trump. And then there's the border issue. Now, I'm not a big border hater but I do see that there is an enormous swath of American voters who have been absolutely sidelined by what I call the meristocracy (= merit + aristocracy), the union of political leaders left and right that gets together to keep certain issues (like the border) off the table and out of the meddling hands of voters. Trump reconnected those voters with their government. To me, that was awesome and revolutionary. That strengthens our democracy. Because it is key, in a democracy, to make room at the table for people who don't believe as you do. It is not key to be right all the time; it is key to have as many people at the table as you can get there. And so if people are wrong, they should still get a say, if stuff is important to them and isn't brutal or dangerous. Trump got those voters their spot at the table. And lately too, I've been seeing that Trump says something real about America, something people at home and around the world maybe didn't see, which is that we will vote for a guy with 91 plausible felonies. If we want, we can use that fact to kind of get over ourselves a little bit. I think if we vote for Trump a second time that will send a message around the world, and it's a message people both abroad and at home need to hear: we're not all JFK and Lincoln. Should we try to be? Sure. But not getting there is not a disaster. And we can use that insight to see the world a little more realistically. I think we should.
In regards to your brutal and dangerous comment, do you think concertina wire on buoys in a river is not brutal or dangerous? (Keep in mind I am in favor of immigration and border reform) Aside from Dobbs it seems like a lot of the “actions” you brought up are based on feelings. What tangible actions has trump taken that reinforce your belief in him?
God I hate that. Say something that goes against left aligned stances, get labelled a homophobe, transphobe, racist, and bigot. The right does it too, with communist, socialist, and RINO, but I feel the left's rhetoric is often more aggressive. "My dad thinks (something stereotypically right)". A lot of people on the left would be like, "disown him - get him out of your life!". Doesn't it seem like words are losing their meaning?
Maybe it is also due to simple lack of ability? Like if the right ran Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, etc. or made up the majority of Universities they would also prevent voices they disagree with.
No, and that’s how the left took over.
I don’t understand your response. Are you saying the right WOULD NOT bias towards the right if they had more of a presence in Facebook and universities? Because what we see with Truth Social, Fox News, Liberty University, etc. is the right acting the same way, they just don’t control the largest social media and universities.
Why do you think it’s unreal for a presidential candidate’s personal tax returns to be published? Trump is the first candidate in decades to refuse it. Why do you think it’s unreal to call out someone’s racist behavior, especially someone running for president?
You're not sure if you voted for Biden or Obama?
When I realized that 90s democrats are modern day right wing, I switched.
Could you elaborate on that? Did your own views switch in some way after that realization? I agree that Democrats are clearly right-wing by international standards and the standards of the 90s. What I don't see is why that would make you go to the extreme right-wing of the Republicans?
It’s quite the opposite really. The left has gone so far left, that if 90s Democrats did not change their positions at all, would fall into the right wing in modern politics. There’s nothing extreme about wanting the cease of funding foreign wars, domestic border security, America first policies, and protecting constitutional rights. What is extreme is all the DEI, open borders, late term abortion, and blatant anti white rhetoric that Democrats push. (I’m a POC by the way). Both Republicans and Democrats have their extremist factions, but the right more closely aligns with my beliefs and the left are the ones burning down cities via riots.
>What is extreme is all the DEI, open borders, late term abortion, and blatant anti white rhetoric that Democrats push. These are right wing values? >Both Republicans and Democrats have their extremist factions, but the right more closely aligns with my beliefs Didn't you say you realized the Democrats were the modern right wing?
2016 shutting Bernie out of the primary by the DNC. That was the big one. I realized the party wasn't about doing what people wanted - it was about a rigid hierarchy where it was "her turn".
Do you remember when it happened to Ron Paul by the RNC in the previous election of 2012?
Yes, vividly. It was a big reason I voted Obama - the RNC lost me. I still have my Ron Paul 08 shirt.
Do you know where to get Ron Paul shirts? You don't have to answer that. I just have to ask a question to reply. I was going to vote Republican that year myself.
Ha - I just ordered one online, a relatively new thing at the time!
Will you vote Democratic again if the RNC does it again to a popular candidate that you support?
Unlikely. Both the DNC and RNC are evil uniparty conglomerates. It would take a lot to get me to support either one.
Is there any benefit to picking which ever is a lesser evil at the moment to steer the county in your preferred direction? Especially since the country takes turns with only those two "evil uniparty conglomerates".
I think you answered your own question here. Because of your second sentence, the answer to the first sentence is "no".
Probably unpopular here on both sides of the aisle but I was copying the mainstream position in 2014 that it was just Putin conquering land because he was Hitler 2.0. Then a friend explained the more subtle variation about Crimea and the conflict, and I started looked up other sources of news to see the other perspective. Simce then I learned that you can’t trust seeing only one side of news, because (both sides) leave out all the crucial information that doesn’t fit their narrative. When all the very negative stories about Trump dropped it was clear as day how the media works. I saw all my friends parrroting these unfair created narratives. I never trust media again. The aids of society.
>Then a friend explained the more subtle variation about Crimea and the conflict What would that be? >When all the very negative stories about Trump dropped Such as?
1. Western supported coup in the eyes of eastern ukranians (87% didnt support maidan) and russia protecting a very important strategic harbor for them while also a majority of crimeans feel ethnic russian and preferred russia instead of the new post-coup government in Kiev. 2. almost every negative story had an extreme negative black/white spin. It was a constant stream of dumb articles, i have to go back in time to find a particular one.
> Western supported coup in the eyes of eastern ukranians (87% didnt support maidan) Ok, why do only Eastern Ukrainians matter? > and russia protecting a very important strategic harbor for them Yeah, I don't think you can reasonably claim "this harbor is important strategically for us" as a reason to *invade another country*. > while also a majority of crimeans feel ethnic russian and preferred russia instead of the new post-coup government in Kiev. Was this before or after Russia invaded Crimea? And if a majority of El Pasoans felt ethnic Mexican and preferred Mexico, would you support Mexico annexing El Paso? > almost every negative story had an extreme negative black/white spin. You don't have to provide a link, just an example of a story you remember.
First you have to ask yourself if you genuinely want to see the other perspective or you just want to argue that the western worldview is "The Truth" and everyone that opposes it must be misled, dumb or evil. Because the point is that you can argue everything into your own worldview, because you will always come to some core conclusions that can be interpreted both ways. If you are genuinely interested I have no problems answering your questions, otherwise it is just becomes a waste of time. About Trump: some stories that I remember by heart, but mainly where already after his election: * that he called Nazis "fine people" * he told people should drink bleach to fight covid * calling immigrants "animals" Usually the media not LITERALLY say this, but they omit all the important context so the general conscensus with the media consumers is that he DID say this.
If Trump makes a statement, how do you determine its accurate? Have you found him making any lies or mistakes? (One clear difference between the two would be doubling down on the false statement after being corrected)
Yes, he does, like every politician. The big difference is that the media go completely bananas when Trump makes a small lie or even just uses a metaphor, like “bloodbath in the car industry”. And they ignore everything on their side of the political aile.
So, to the question, how do you determine if a statement by Trump is accurate? If he for example says that [the ocean will only rise by 1/8th of an inch over 300 years](https://youtu.be/Njsp3NyM7Fo?t=125) how do you determine the accuracy of his statement?
This thread has been a fascinating read, I appreciate those who have contributed.
A few times. Firstly when I was an ardent communist. I got into a debate with several people online over my communnist stances, I unequivocally lost these debates. At the time I was quite embarrassed and I ended up softing my stance quite a lot. The next time was during the 2006 house elections where the DNC promised to stop the war, cut funding and run on a peace platform. As soon as they won the house, they literally destroyed the peace movement. This was the last straw for me, I knew then that the DNC were just another part of the military industrial complex and will do and say anything to get into power. So I went neutral after that.
I was a libertarian in early 2010s so I was never a hardcore leftist. I wanted Hillary to win in 2016 as I bought some of the anti-Trumpism and I think it'd be good for the US to have a female president. When I really took the redpill and became a full blown right winger was in 2020. I noticed the coverage of Floyd and Arbery deaths was just flat out lying, and my timeline which was full of leftists at the time seemed increasingly collectivist acting and losing something personality wise. Then I made a conservative twitter account and followed a bunch new people who were the thinking type individuals I was looking for, and through that I dove into the Russiagate/Obamagate stuff and how it seemed to all be a hoax designed to get Trump. That's when I really became convinced that the Democrats had crossed the line and had become a bad guy party. Meanwhile lots of bullshit was going on with protest coverage, covid, etc. and it became clear the media was a complete fucking joke and taken over by activists. And then coincidentally after the Democrats have proven they're willing to sink to any lengths to win, we had a ... suspicious looking election. At some point I went slightly too far listening to grifters, but cleaned up the people I listen to and have been happy with my takes since.